A consumer who hauled Hippo.co.za before the Advertising Regulatory Board for an advert she found “most appalling and offensive” has won her case.
The director of the ARB has instructed the advert should never be flighted where children are able to view it.
The commercial shows a man on his laptop at home, with the voiceover “Eric is broke.”
The advert then shows Eric making excuses not to go out with his friends, because he doesn’t have money.
He lies that he has an eye infection.
But when his friends say they are coming over, Eric panicks and runs to chop onions, then rubs petroleum jelly in his eyes.
His last attempt is rubbing chilli sauce in his eyes, which is now swollen.
“Don’t tell month-end lies. Use Hippo. Find cheaper insurance, medical aid, loans and more,” says the voice-over, while the hippo shows Eric how to use the search tool.
Consumer Norma Read in her complaint stated: “This is the most appalling and offensive advertisement. Can you imagine what the consequences would be if young people tried to copy that in order to excuse themselves from school or other commitments.”
However Hippo.co.za said the advertisement in question is humorous in nature, harmless, and intended to amuse the audience.
Arguing that the advert aims to highlight the fact that many South Africans cannot meet their monthly debit order responsibilities and make up excuses why they cannot make certain commitments such as entertainment activities with friends and family.
It further denied that the advert would influence children as it was a parody and actually dissuades people from acting this way.
As Hippo is not a member of the ARB, the directorate said the matter was considered for the guidance of the members of the ARB.
“It remains the Advertiser’s prerogative whether or not to submit itself to the decision.”
In its ruling the ARB found that a younger child may not understand the danger of performing these acts and that the items in the advert is something a child will be able to find in their home.
“When it comes to the physical safety of young children, the Directorate errs on the side of caution. It is preferable to limit the flighting of a commercial over taking the risk that a child may meet some harm as the result of viewing the commercial.”
IOL News